I was asked today… "Why was the compound in El Dorado raided? The Catholic church was never raided and its a well known fact that for YEARS many young men were abused and the leaders of the church knew!!! So what’s the difference? Some might say it was the seclusion of this compound which probably did contribute. But for 50 years or better, young people were abused by leaders of the Catholic church and they did nothing to protect the children. So where did authorities get the right to invade an remove over 400 children from their families in El Dorado?"

This is sad to compare the two but I really don’t know how to answer her. Can some please help with this?

Well with that train of thought we could say the same about public schools. Many children are abused by teachers and the government know full well about this abuse and still do nothing, but shuffle the abusers around to new districts.

I think that the reason for the raids is because of the groups seclusion.

How do you “raid” isolated churches with isolated perpetrators and victims across decades of time?

You only need to “raid” a compound because there is a “compound” and someone in the compound is in danger and has asked for help.

A child called the authorities and asked for help.

I guess following this persons “logic” we should have just said: “There are some people that we didn’t stop from abusing children so we won’t try and stop anyone from abusing children because it wouldn’t be fair the child molester?”

I understand the particular disgust that discovering a priest is a child molester holds for people, but I cannot understand the lack of similar disgust and outrage in all cases of child molestation.

I think we have a cultural issue where we get more upset about “hypocrisy” and “intent” than we do about the actual crimes people commit.

Murder is murder, but we label one murder a “hate crime”, scream for the death penalty, call the next murderer a “victim of his environment”, and scream for leniency

Why are folks so rightly upset about priest molestations but not equally outraged about the much more frequent molestation that takes place by a child’s parents or other close family members?

Is the violation of parental trust not even more hypocritical and outrageous than that of a priest, or teacher or friend?

Nevertheless, we save our outrage for the priests.

I would be willing to bet that this person has a problem with the Church and this is a handy excuse to knock down the church in an effort to avoid dealing with their own issues.

Is the assumption on this forum that the anonymous allegations of abuse are true?

This certainly seems to be the case when it comes to allegations against Catholic priests.

But, no I don’t believe this is a typical assumption. If anything, I think folks on this forum generally take pains to presume innocence.

I suspect the use of the term “compound” (how scary is THAT word? ) is being used to emotionally justify the raid based on the allegation - an unproven

allegation to boot.
Let us see, a young girl calls the authorities, complains that she is pregnant, and was forced to get married and that she needs help.

I am pretty sure the standard protocol in reported cases of child abuse is to remove the children from the environment while the investigation proceeds.

I am sure it is quite painful for all those involved, but this also seems the prudent course of action to me.

Unfortunately, the truly innocent accused are never afforded any real protection or recourse. By the time the truth comes out their lives and reputation have usually been destroyed and no one is nearly as interested in publicizing the fact that they were found innocent.

I don’t think responses to unproven accusations are quite the same thing as proven instances of current & ongoing abuse.

Agreed, unfortunately in current American culture we seem to be more interested in the severity of the accusation than the facts of the criminal case.

In this case, I trust that our legal system demanded evidence of “probable cause” before the “raid”, especially because of the potential for “religious persecution” accusations.

Isn’t that possible in the case of these accusations against the folks at El Dorado? They’re FLDS, so they’re wrong about God, & about polygamy, etc., but those things don’t prove guilt.

Is it possible that some religious bias led authorities to act? Sure.

Do I believe that is “why” they acted in the actual case? No.

In general, the religious views of those accused should have absolutely nothing to do with the actions that authorities take.

Should professed religious beliefs about polygamy and the age of consent play a role in deciding to take action in a case like this one? I don’t know. Maybe? Though it is a “religious belief”, isn’t it also circumstantial evidence of a sort that needs to be taken into consideration when considering the girls allegations?

I was asked today… "Why was the compound in El Dorado raided? The Catholic church was never raided and its a well known fact that for YEARS many young men were abused and the leaders of the church knew!!! So what’s the difference? Some might say it was the seclusion of this compound which probably did contribute. But for 50 years or better, young people were abused by leaders of the Catholic church and they did nothing to protect the children. So where did authorities get the right to invade an remove over 400 children from their families in El Dorado?"

This is sad to compare the two but I really don’t know how to answer her. Can some please help with this?

As always thanks!!!

Tony

I think that if this had happened 40-50 years ago the raid might not have happened. The authorities took action because the Catholic Church events brought this issue into the public eye.

I was asked today… "Why was the compound in El Dorado raided? The Catholic church was never raided and its a well known fact that for YEARS many young men were abused and the leaders of the church knew!!! So what’s the difference? Some might say it was the seclusion of this compound which probably did contribute. But for 50 years or better, young people were abused by leaders of the Catholic church and they did nothing to protect the children. So where did authorities get the right to invade an remove over 400 children from their families in El Dorado?"

This is sad to compare the two but I really don’t know how to answer her. Can some please help with this?

As always thanks!!!

Tony

**What raid are you referring to ? (A search on the Net didn’t help.) ****If the abuse in the CC was unknown to to the police, that might well make a difference between the two cases. Be that as it may, the civil authorities should come down on the CC like a ton of bricks - the CC is not & cannot be above the law. Clerical abuse & molestation & betrayal of the trust that ****ought to exist between priest & parishioners ****are ****never, ever, tolerable, not from anyone. **

**An answer that will never do is one that consists in trying to excuse or justify the crimes & wrong-doing of the CC or of anyone in it - that is just about the worst possible reply, because it would merely help to give the impression that the authorities in the CC care only for themselves & the good reputation of “CC Inc.” - & not for those whose have been abused. If the CC is guilty of betrayal of trust, or of anything else, honesty is the best policy. Defensiveness & trying to salvage the reputation of ****the CC when it’s justly ****accused of evil is not something a Christian ****should bother with: because it is just that evil should be punished or blamed. To defend wrongdoing is perverse: provided there is evil to blame in the first place. If the CC is blamed unjustly - then so be it. **

I was asked today… "Why was the compound in El Dorado raided? The Catholic church was never raided and its a well known fact that for YEARS many young men were abused and the leaders of the church knew!!! So what’s the difference? Some might say it was the seclusion of this compound which probably did contribute. But for 50 years or better, young people were abused by leaders of the Catholic church and they did nothing to protect the children. So where did authorities get the right to invade an remove over 400 children from their families in El Dorado?"

This is sad to compare the two but I really don’t know how to answer her. Can some please help with this?

As always thanks!!!

Tony

answering your specific question, not the whole topic.

one difference is the children in this compound were allegedly abused by their own parents.

another is that in this recent TX case, someone complained to authorities, CPS and criminal law. In many of the abuse cases, no one ever filed a complaint with authorities, even when parents were aware of it. In other cases complaints were filed long after statutes of limitations had run out. Had serial abusers been reported sooner, maybe the number of victims could have been limited. the child who complained in TX was believed. some children who complained earlier were not believed.

also in TX authorities took action. In many of the earlier abuse cases, civil and criminal justice authorities took no action.

this topic including the actual research, facts and figures, has been discussed at great length here, so if that info would be useful to you, a search would be helpful.

Didn’t mean to imply that abuse is continuing, but meant to state that there is a difference between unproven claims & instances of abuse that have been proven.

clmowry:

But, no I don’t believe this is a typical assumption. If anything, I think folks on this forum generally take pains to presume innocence.

Hi Chuck,

That typically seems to be the case to me also. I simply ask because of the responses to the OP in which guilt seems to be assumed.

clmowry:

Let us see, a young girl calls the authorities, complains that she is pregnant, and was forced to get married and that she needs help.

I am pretty sure the standard protocol in reported cases of child abuse is to remove the children from the environment while the investigation proceeds.

I am sure it is quite painful for all those involved, but this also seems the prudent course of action to me.

Unfortunately, the truly innocent accused are never afforded any real protection or recourse. By the time the truth comes out their lives and reputation have usually been destroyed and no one is nearly as interested in publicizing the fact that they were found innocent.

Agreed, unfortunately in current American culture we seem to be more interested in the severity of the accusation than the facts of the criminal case.

My point was not about the allegation itself, but about how the term “compound” has come to play an incendiary role in the apparent vilification of any group that may have done something wrong. Would it be called a “compound” if the story was about a charity the kids in Eldorado had formed? I kind of doubt it.

In any case, the “young girl” is a still-unidentified 16 year old whose claims of abuse are unproven. I am not saying that such a claim shouldn’t be looked into, but I only note that guilt has not been proven, so should not be assumed.

I asked whether the accusations against the Eldorado group were from a girl who has a problem with them, in the same way you asked if the original questioner has a problem with the Catholic Church.

clmowry:

In this case, I trust that our legal system demanded evidence of “probable cause” before the “raid”, especially because of the potential for “religious persecution” accusations.

Since an anonymous allegation is not sufficient probable cause for a warrant, I agree.

clmowry:

Is it possible that some religious bias led authorities to act? Sure.

Do I believe that is “why” they acted in the actual case? No.

In general, the religious views of those accused should have absolutely nothing to do with the actions that authorities take.
Should professed religious beliefs about polygamy and the age of consent play a role in deciding to take action in a case like this one? I don’t know. Maybe? Though it is a “religious belief”, isn’t it also circumstantial evidence of a sort that needs to be taken into consideration when considering the girls allegations?

For example, the Mormon practice of storing food isn’t illegal, but polygamy is.

I’m sure that at some level, the religious beliefs of the group led to the actions of the authorities. Since anonymous tips are insufficient, they surely contributed at least in part to the affidavit which was used to seek the warrant.

There exists two differences. First, the children lived on premise here. Call it a compound or community, they lived there, as opposed to the accusations of priests, where those involved did not live with the priests. Second, those who are exposing the children to abuse at the FLDS compound are the children’s own parents.

**What raid are you referring to ? (A search on the Net didn’t help.) ****If the abuse in the CC was unknown to to the police, that might well make a difference between the two cases. Be that as it may, the civil authorities should come down on the CC like a ton of bricks - the CC is not & cannot be above the law. Clerical abuse & molestation & betrayal of the trust that ****ought to exist between priest & parishioners ****are ****never, ever, tolerable, not from anyone. **

**An answer that will never do is one that consists in trying to excuse or justify the crimes & wrong-doing of the CC or of anyone in it - that is just about the worst possible reply, because it would merely help to give the impression that the authorities in the CC care only for themselves & the good reputation of “CC Inc.” - & not for those whose have been abused. If the CC is guilty of betrayal of trust, or of anything else, honesty is the best policy. Defensiveness & trying to salvage the reputation of ****the CC when it’s justly ****accused of evil is not something a Christian **should bother with: because it is just that evil should be punished or blamed. To defend wrongdoing is perverse: provided there is evil to blame in the first place. If the CC is blamed unjustly - then so be it.

I believe the raid he is referring to was last weeks raid on the Fundamentalist Church of the Later Day Saints, a polygamist sect, where several hundred children were taken into protective custody. See this link for the current situation.